Mentor's Response to Anderson, "A more wicked assertion to put into print

[Natalie Severn]

Outraged in 1910, after reading Robert Anderson"s series of articles in Blackwood"s magazine telling readers that the murders known as "Jack the Ripper" crimes were the work of a Jew,the editor of "The Jewish Chronicle" Leopold Jacob Greenberg aka MENTOR, wrote a long article about the matter on 4 March 1910.
"Was anything more nonsensical ever conceived?" asks Mentor "....here was a whole neighbourhood,largely composed of Jews,.....in constant terror lest their womenfolk should be slain by some murderer walking the district undiscovered.....so terrified were many people-non-Jews as well as Jews they moved away.And yet Sir Robert would have us believe that there were Jews who knew the person who was committing the abominable crimes and yet carefully shielded him from the police.A more wicked assertion to put into print ,without the shadow of evidence,I have seldom seen.The man who Scotland Yard suspected,subsequently,says Sir Robert,"was caged in an asylum".He was never brought to trial-nothing except his lunacy proved against him.This lunatic presumably was a Jew,and because he was "suspected",as a result of the police "theory" I have mentioned,Sir Robert ventures to tell the story he does,as if he were stating facts ........"


--- and so it goes on until we come to the last paragraph:

"IT is a matter of regret and surprise that so able a man as Sir Robert Anderson should,upon the wholly erroneous and ridiculous "theory" that Jews should shield a raving murderer because he was a Jew,rather than yield him up to "Gentile justice",build the series of statements he has.There is no real proof that the lunatic who was "caged" was a Jew [Kosminski ofcourse was alive and well-physically when this was written in 1910]there is absolutely no proof that he was responsible for the "Jack the Ripper "crimes,hence it appears to me wholly gratuitous on the part of Sir Robert to fasten the wrteched creature---whoever he was ---upon our people.



I would like to open a discussion about this Jewish editor"s article,to which though Sir Robert replied very apologetically,left a very bitter taste---in fact Mentor insists that Anderson misses the whole point of his complaint saying he did not so much object to him saying Jack the Ripper was a Jew- though clearly that was a very ill-advised thing to say if Anderson was really the friend of Jews that he claimed in his apology,knowing it could cause a backlash:
"What I objected to-and despite Sir Robert Anderson"s explanations I still do-in his Blackwood article,is that Jews knew that "jack the Ripper had done his foul deeds,shielded him from the police,and guarded him so he could continue his horrible career,just because he was a Jew.This was the aspersion to which I referred and about which I notice Sir Robert says nothing.Ofcourse,when Sir Robert says that the man he means was "proved" to be the murderer,and that upon that point he spoke facts,he also ignores the somewhat important matter that the man was never put upon his trial.Knowing what I do,I would hesitate to brand even such a creature as Sir Robert describes as the author of the Ripper crimes upon the very strongest evidence short of convivtion after due trial..........

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, Natalie, I think you already know my strong views on this subject, but I will say again that even today modern police forces struggle to deal with the institutionalised racialism within their ranks; and the situation was far more dire in the 19th century.
What I find a pity is that the prejudicial and racialist views of these serving Victorian police officers is still shared today by a minority of writers and researchers who really should know better.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, Natalie, I think you already know my strong views on this subject, but I will say again that even today modern police forces struggle to deal with the institutionalised racialism within their ranks; and the situation was far more dire in the 19th century.

Racism is surely no more "institutionalised" in the police than it is on building sites, at food outlets, supermarkets, or in many other walks of life, AP. Personally, I believe that "institutionalised" police racism has been hyped out of all proportion - there are racists everywhere. I've certainly known more racists who worked in offices or the building trade than were police officers.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Ap and Sam,
Well this is certainly a delicate subject and I dont want to inflame sensitivities more than is required to try to understand the motivation and
attitudes of Robert Anderson.This man, as Head of CID in 1888 and as the writer of the Blackwoods magazine articles and an autobiography in 1910 was claiming not only that he knew the identity of the ripper,who he says was a low class Polish Jew,but that his immediate community were known to be people who would have shielded a killer who had committed the outrages that Jack the Ripper did just so that he did not have to face Gentile Justice.
Clearly the editor of the Jewish Chronicle perceived him to be profoundly anti semitic,for dreaming up such an extraordinary notion in the first place and carefully noted that despite Anderson"s very profuse apologies and claims that he was a friend of the Jewish Community, Anderson did not actually retract or apologise for holding his strongly held position that the local low class, Polish, Jewish Community were responsible for preventing Jack the Ripper from being brought to justice.

So what do we make of such a scenario?

Well in my view it paints a picture of a man who is really rather out of touch.He simply fails to understand that his remarks could possibly have caused offence. Surely then Anderson presents as a man who really doesnt have much by way of empathetic understanding.He is upset and surprised that his remarks should have caused such distress, he cannot put himself in another person"s position or even understand why he should be offended by what he said.But lets imagine the editor of the Jewish Chronicle had written an articile for Blackwoods magazine or written an autobiography in 1910 stating he actually knew the identity of Jack the Ripper ,that he was living among Irish Ulster loyalist"s and being hidden by them and that it was a well known fact that such people shielded criminals [however mad and murderous ] in order that they didnt have to face a court of justice.Would Anderson,an Irish Loyalist himself, have been happy with such an accusation and depiction of his compatriots in Blackwoods Magazine?
This inability to put himself in another person"s shoes runs through a number of his remarks-think of what he said about withdrawing his police from protecting women on the streets after certain hours,indifferent to their inability,in the vast majority of cases , to get other employment than prostitution because of the unemployment situation at the time and that in order to stay alive they had to sell their bodies.
This is not a man in touch with the real world .And it is only one example of his occupation of a different planet from ordinary people because we have Winston Churchill at this time so astonished by his indiscreet declarations that he threatened to withdraw his pension .Churchill
tried to it dismiss all the indiscretions made in public by referring to them as " More of Anderson"s Fairy Tales".

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, let's not kid about here, for the Metropolitan Police Force of London is probably the only organisation in the world that has produced a detailed report, and action plan, on the recognised institutionalised racism amongst its own officers.
This is the same Metropolitan Police Force as in the LVP; and as I said the situation was far more dire then than now.

[Sam Flynn]

This is the same Metropolitan Police Force as in the LVP

I'm not so sure, AP - by which I mean that we see the world from a different perspective than our Victorian counterparts. A lot of water has flown into the Tiber since then, and the intervening century has seen a tradition of organised racism that was largely absent in the 1880s. First there was Mosley's fanning the flames of racism in the 1930s, then the waves of the Afro-caribbean and Bangladeshi immigrations of the mid-late 20th Century, which caused arguably more extreme civil unrest than had gone before. Added to which, we've had the almost "acceptable" lampooning of these immigrants in film or in popular television (Love thy Neighbour, Alf Garnett, Bernard Manning, Jim Davidson...). I'm not so sure that such mainstream vehicles to delight the racist's palate existed back then - especially when one considers the influence and popularity of Jewish artists and impresarios in the world of entertainment at the turn of the 20th Century.

That's not to deny that antisemitism existed back then - of course it did - but I doubt that it was as widespread in police ranks as you might think, nor as extreme. Were there, in fact, instances of Jews being arbitrarily stopped and searched on the streets? Did Jews mysteriously "fall down the stairs" at police stations? I rather hope not. (Sorry to resort to cliché, but it's only to make a point.)

[Dan Norder]

That's not to deny that antisemitism existed back then - of course it did - but I doubt that it was as widespread in police ranks as you might think, nor as extreme.

Are you seriously trying to argue that there would have been less institutionalized racism in the police during the Victorian era? Everything about society back then was more racist in general, and the Jews were especially hated and feared because of the increased immigration at the time. It's not even slightly realistic to suggest otherwise.

[Sam Flynn]

It's not even realistic to suggest otherwise

Why not, Dan? I phrased my position carefully - especially with regard to the Jews. Do you know of many Jews who "Only fell down the stairs, Sarge", or of Jews (Ripper case aside) who were routinely stopped and searched in the streets during in the LVP? AP's suggestion was that the Met back then was more racist than the Met of today - it is yet to be proven that it was any near as widespread, or as extreme. If you have any evidence that contradicts my assertion, in the (clear) terms I set it out, then I'd be more than happy to be disabused.

It's being abused that takes a little adjusting to, especially on what purports to be a "discussion" board.

[Natalie Severn]

All you have to do Sam is to read William Fishman on the Police raids that took place on the Berner Street Club.See too Stewart and Don"s book,footnotes regarding one of them- page 290 when Diemshutz"s wife was alleged to have been thrown down and kicked until blood streamed.
post script: this was just one such raid.There are more that are clearly demonstrated in Fishman"s book," East End 1888".

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Nats,

All you have to do Sam is to read William Fishman on the Police raids that took place on the Berner Street Club.See too Stewart and Don"s book,footnotes regarding one of them- page 290 when Diemshutz"s wife was alleged to have been thrown down and kicked until blood streamed.
post script: this was just one such raid.

Over-reaction in such situation wasn't confined to the Jews, I'm sure, as the events of 1887 demonstrated - and there's a political dimension to what went on in Berner Street which makes the situation a little more complex than "institutionalised" racism. I'm concerned about the Met discriminating against, or picking on Late Victorian Jews to the same, or worse, extent than they might have done against Afro-Caribbeans/Asians in more recent years. If such discrimination wasn't as bad or worse than it was in the late 20th Century, then my assertion to that effect seems to have been a reasonable one.

[Natalie Severn]

If we restrict the argument to what the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle said in 1910,in response to Anderson"s words in Blackwoods magazine,we can see that he believed Anderson had singled out the Jewish community as being a community that had not only spawned Jack the Ripper but protected the Ripper from being brought to justice by a British Court thus allowing the killer to continue to murder and mutilate.He is referring to Anderson"s himself as having written with bias / prejudice/discrimination against Jews.
Now I believe that despite Warren resigning in the middle of the Ripper scare, he was a Police Chief who was much more aware of what a delicate situation the Jews were in,after Pizer had been chased by Thick and accused of being Jack the Ripper and Warren took action as best he could to stop further outbreaks of anti-semitism.
Not only that but Henry Smith ,the Chief Commissioner of Police for the City of London, appears to have been shocked by Anderson"s statement about Jews and talks of it as being a "reckless accusation" [as well as being a totally unfair assertion against the Jewish Community -a lot of nonsense].
So its a difficult one.Some in the Police Force were clearly very sensitive to this issue but Robert Anderson seems to have been at best extremely irresponsible about what he stated in Blackwood"s magazine and in his autobiography about Jews and their habits and at worst anti- semitic , inflammatory and prepared to hoodwink his readers by dangerously disciminatory and totally unproven assertion.

[Stephen Thomas]

Are you seriously trying to argue that there would have been less institutionalized racism in the police during the Victorian era? Everything about society back then was more racist in general, and the Jews were especially hated and feared because of the increased immigration at the time. It's not even slightly realistic to suggest otherwise.

Hi Dan

Sam is quite correct, to my mind, in his posts either side of what I'm quoting from you here. In the LVP in Britain there was negligable immigration and more or less the entire British population consisted of white faced Christian English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people. My impression is that the police had no particular problems with Jewish people then, and were actually quite impressed by, and grateful for their social orderliness which made the job of the police in previously rough places like Spitalfields somewhat easier. I'm well aware of the mechanics of racism and I'm sure you are too, as all political statements I've noticed from you here have shown a liberal sensibility but I really don't think that the concept of 'institutionalised racism' could apply to the British police in Victorian times.

[Cap'n Jack]

I think that a fair summary, Natalie.
If you read this chap, it appears that the Jews were to be blamed for everything:

'Paul Knepper1

(1) Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Elmfield Bldg, Northumberland Rd, Sheffield, S10 2TU, UK

Published online: 10 July 2008

Abstract In the decades before the First World War, London worried about anarchist outrages, and particularly, about Jews said to instigate them. Jewish anarchists were rumoured to have been responsible for the ‘ripper’ murders in Whitechapel (1888), an attempt to blow up the Royal Observatory at Greenwich Park (1894) and the Houndsditch murders (1910)/Sidney Street affair (1911). Jews were a visible population in the East End, and editors, MPs, and police authorities offered Jewishness to explain the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of anarchist violence. Jews were also thought to have the capacity to become invisible, ‘outsiders’ who could pass for ‘insiders’. In the radical press, and fictionalised accounts in novels such as Conrad’s The Secret Agent, the image of the Jewish anarchist became that of agent provocateur paid by police to infiltrate and undermine the movement. Jews were said to operate behind-the-scenes, manipulating the economy and political structure. The invisible hand of the market and the invisible hand of anarchism were attached to a Jewish body.'

[Natalie Severn]

Brilliant-you couldnt put it more aptly Ap.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I posted this on another thread, but it's worth re-posting here.

The Times, 30th July 1888—



Regards,

Simon